Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 1612 (ALL)

Surja v. Gaon Sabha

1992-12-04

J.N.DWIVEDI, V.S.PANDEY

body1992
JUDGMENT V.S. Pandey, Member. - This review petition has been filed by Surja and Phool Singh against the order dated 4.12.1991 passed by Sri M.M. Gopal, the then Member, dismissing their revision against the order of Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division, dated 14.6.1976 by which he had dismissed their revision No. 105 of 1975-76 against the order of the Addl. Collector dated 9.12.75. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file. 3. The facts of this case are that Bhikkhari and eleven others moved an application on 10.1.1975 for cancellation of the allotments made in favour of the applicants on the grounds that the same plots were earlier allotted to them on 20.7.67. That allotment was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 22.12.70, but a revision was filed in the Court of the Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division and the Addl. Commissioner had recommended for allowing their revision to the Board of Revenue on 17.11.71. The Addl. Collector cancelled the allotments of Surja and Phool Singh on the grounds that the same plots could not be allotted to them on 7.7.73 since they were earlier allotted to Bhikhari and others on 20.7.67 and, their allotments had not been cancelled so far. The same view was upheld by the Addl. Commissioner and Sri M.M. Gopal, Member. 4. In the grounds of the review petition, it has been stated that there is no evidence to the effect that the same plots were allotted to the revisionists, which were earlier allotted to Bhikhari and others. We do not agree. The Addl. Collector has clearly mentioned in his judgment that these very plots, which had been allotted to Bhikhari and others, were subsequently allotted to the present revisionists. This ground was never taken up that the plots were different, and so, this ground cannot be taken at this stage. 5. The next arguments advanced is that in the earlier reference made by the Addl. Commissioner in favour of Surja and others, the Board should have found out the result of the reference, and then only it could come to the conclusion that the allotments in favour of Bhikhari and others had been upheld. We have scrutinised the misleband register of district Saharanpur, and find that no such reference is pending. Commissioner in favour of Surja and others, the Board should have found out the result of the reference, and then only it could come to the conclusion that the allotments in favour of Bhikhari and others had been upheld. We have scrutinised the misleband register of district Saharanpur, and find that no such reference is pending. Had the reference been rejected, and the allotments in favour of Bhikhari and others had been cancelled, the applicants could have cancelled, the applicants could have filed a certified copy of the judgment. This means that the recommendation of the Addl. Commissioner allowing the leases executed in favour of Bhikhari and others was accepted by the Board of Revenue. Thus, it is clear that the same plots were allotted to the present applicant-revisionists, even though the earlier allotments were not cancelled. Thus, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is perfectly correct, and no error apparent on the face of the record could be shown. 6. The review petition is baseless and is hereby rejected.